Posted by
timothy
on from the not-the-same-as-self-flagellation dept.
Bob Smith writes: "Miguel just commited the last patch nessisary to get Mono's C# compiler to compile itself. After 7 odd months, MCS is now self hosting."jbarn adds: "Mono-list email is here."
What a prime opportunity for karma whoring
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Too bad I can't think of anything to say. My karma is dangerously low.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things?
Not the same as self-flagellation...
by
Snard
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
... but perhaps the same as doing something else all by yourself, when no one's around?
-- - Mike
Re:good news,
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Mod parent up for the amusing use of a $ in Microsoft
Want a free car?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Our car-manufacturing company has developed a new revolutionary business model for making cars.
We give away the cars for free and then we sell services for those cars! If you want to we can clean your car, wax it or you can use some of our other services.
We get cash from a couple of VC's, the rest of them simple don't "get it". If we need more we just call "the suits".
This might make it a bit more intriguing
by
f00zbll
·
· Score: 3, Offtopic
There have been several post in the last year about C#, but they were only mildly interesting (ie it only got me to read whitepapers, articles and sample code). Now that mono is progressing forward it is more interesting.
I don't remember all the differences between C# and Java, but it does make it more appealing. Unfortunately, SOAP is a bit heavy for the most simple web services (what ever it means to microsoft). The cost of using soap means the XML has to use DOM and it has to validate the required nodes. From W3C spec on SOAP, it states:
A SOAP message is an XML document that consists of a mandatory SOAP envelope, an optional SOAP Header, and a mandatory SOAP Body.
Anyone working with XML knows that validating DOM structure can be very costly for complex tree structures. For a simple document like SOAP, it's not bad until you realize it is intended for business to business processes, which could mean millions a day. The argument that SOAP is "as simple as it can/should be" ignores the fact that systems that would benefit from SOAP or other XML RPC (remote procedure calling) the most have complex distributed processes. Most of the.NET whitepapers I've read so far recycle ideas others developed. Microsoft's innovation was repackaging it as a platform.
It's too bad microsoft's whitepapers don't credit the orginal authors, since a lot of people worked to push XML forward. In some ways, it feels like SOAP and.NET is a bastardized version of Burners Lee's vision of a semantic web using XML web services and RDF. Perhaps all the press.NET has generated for XML services will help create the critical mass needed to get semantic web moving.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad I can't think of anything to say. My karma is dangerously low.
Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things?
... but perhaps the same as doing something else all by yourself, when no one's around?
- Mike
Mod parent up for the amusing use of a $ in Microsoft
Our car-manufacturing company has developed a new revolutionary business model for making cars.
We give away the cars for free and then we sell services for those cars! If you want to we can clean your car, wax it or you can use some of our other services.
We get cash from a couple of VC's, the rest of them simple don't "get it". If we need more we just call "the suits".
I don't remember all the differences between C# and Java, but it does make it more appealing. Unfortunately, SOAP is a bit heavy for the most simple web services (what ever it means to microsoft). The cost of using soap means the XML has to use DOM and it has to validate the required nodes. From W3C spec on SOAP, it states:
Anyone working with XML knows that validating DOM structure can be very costly for complex tree structures. For a simple document like SOAP, it's not bad until you realize it is intended for business to business processes, which could mean millions a day. The argument that SOAP is "as simple as it can/should be" ignores the fact that systems that would benefit from SOAP or other XML RPC (remote procedure calling) the most have complex distributed processes. Most of the .NET whitepapers I've read so far recycle ideas others developed. Microsoft's innovation was repackaging it as a platform.
It's too bad microsoft's whitepapers don't credit the orginal authors, since a lot of people worked to push XML forward. In some ways, it feels like SOAP and .NET is a bastardized version of Burners Lee's vision of a semantic web using XML web services and RDF. Perhaps all the press .NET has generated for XML services will help create the critical mass needed to get semantic web moving.
Microsoft == Sauron, creates the One Ring (the CLR, the Common Language Runtime)
The Rings of Power == various implementations of programming language to C# parsers, for example C to C#
Miquel == Saruman, creates his own "Ring of Power" (MONO) to use against Sauron (Microsoft)
The question is, who/what will be the hobbit that will cast the .NET back into the fires of Mount Doom? ;)
One CLR to rule them all, .NET to find them,
One
One CLR to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
nt
My God man, learn to spell! Are you taking notes? Good. Necessary is spelt:
N E C E S S A R Y
You sir, are a fucking idiot.
Buckets of love juice, The Anonymous Flaming Troll.
So we now have a stereo compiler!
Python,Smalltalk...
...Ruby
could it also go fuck itself?
there's no place like ~
good point
look my sig changes!!! nrrt mf oci jdabi.o!!! z..a ir kot gh-ntbk{{{
Zeh Zahlzeichen
Aber bitte _nicht_ "Raute" sagen, same danger
to exchange them where one can't as pound/hash
in English.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And